One of the most interesting things about this site is the karma scoring, and that it reflects (to a greater degree than you see elsewhere) an objective assessment of the merits of an argument.
Ghmm. To me it provides information about community’s beliefs. Here’s an example . This had something like −7 +3 , first I assumed −2 was because of lack of clarity, edited it, and it got to −7 , after which I assumed LW simply dislikes the notion.
Ghmm. To me it provides information about community’s beliefs.
Interesting. I think popularity clearly plays a role and that policing can be an important mechanism to correct that. (the example you cite has drifted up to −1 now). The example from this thread was at −2 before policing and is now at +5. Would that have happened without policing? I don’t know.
I guess the bigger question is how to make the policing worth everyone’s time. I think this requires a more clever mechanism than one-person, one-vote. E.g. a referee system calls for judgments on an issue from “experts” and not for a popularity contest. This is just the beginning of the sorts of changes that are needed, though.
As an aside, here are the results of my experiment in which I left this thread alone (for many weeks actually) and waited to see what would happen. The main result was your post (which is now at −2, sigh.). I think I’ll up vote it to −1. I share your concern for the role of popularity in the voting. I don’t think the voting is as rational as the majority wish it was (even in net and even after time, though less so perhaps esp. with policing). I’m still looking for a website which wouldn’t reflect popularity in its voting, but would still allow for an organic (i.e. self-organizing) ranking system. I’ve drafted some plans but I doubt I’ll take the time to realize them—too many other things to do.
This might be a mistake. Effectively leveraging the masses without being vulnerable to their whimsy could be a powerful tool for humanity.
Ghmm. To me it provides information about community’s beliefs. Here’s an example . This had something like −7 +3 , first I assumed −2 was because of lack of clarity, edited it, and it got to −7 , after which I assumed LW simply dislikes the notion.
Interesting. I think popularity clearly plays a role and that policing can be an important mechanism to correct that. (the example you cite has drifted up to −1 now). The example from this thread was at −2 before policing and is now at +5. Would that have happened without policing? I don’t know.
I guess the bigger question is how to make the policing worth everyone’s time. I think this requires a more clever mechanism than one-person, one-vote. E.g. a referee system calls for judgments on an issue from “experts” and not for a popularity contest. This is just the beginning of the sorts of changes that are needed, though.
As an aside, here are the results of my experiment in which I left this thread alone (for many weeks actually) and waited to see what would happen. The main result was your post (which is now at −2, sigh.). I think I’ll up vote it to −1. I share your concern for the role of popularity in the voting. I don’t think the voting is as rational as the majority wish it was (even in net and even after time, though less so perhaps esp. with policing). I’m still looking for a website which wouldn’t reflect popularity in its voting, but would still allow for an organic (i.e. self-organizing) ranking system. I’ve drafted some plans but I doubt I’ll take the time to realize them—too many other things to do.
This might be a mistake. Effectively leveraging the masses without being vulnerable to their whimsy could be a powerful tool for humanity.